[반환일시금지급거부처분결정취소] 항소[각공2014상,106]
In a case where a workplace subscriber Gap who had less than 10 years' subscription period for the national pension was 60 years of age as of October 14, 2006 and was entitled to a lump-sum refund payment, and thereafter Gap did not voluntarily join the national pension but requested a lump-sum refund payment to the National Pension Service on September 10, 2012, and the Corporation disposed of a site payment notice on the ground of the expiration of extinctive prescription, the case holding that the above disposition was remarkably unfair or unfair and thus unlawful.
In a case where Gap, a workplace-based insured person, who joined the National Pension Scheme for less than 10 years, became a beneficiary of a lump-sum refund as of October 14, 2006 and thereafter became a beneficiary of a lump-sum refund, and later Gap filed a claim for payment of a lump-sum refund with the National Pension Service on September 10, 2012, and the Corporation has completed five years after the date when the entitlement to a lump-sum refund became effective, the case held that the above disposition is unlawful on the ground that it is reasonable to consider that the statute of limitations should be terminated in the event Gap does not receive a lump-sum refund from the National Pension Scheme unless the entitlement to a lump-sum refund is continued voluntarily, and that the payment should be notified even in the case where a former insured person becomes entitled to a lump-sum refund such as a lump-sum refund, etc., on the ground that the statute of limitations for a lump-sum refund of a lump-sum refund has expired.
Articles 2 and 162 of the Civil Act; Articles 12, 67(1)1 (see current Article 77(1)1); and 95 (see current Article 115) of the former National Pension Act; Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the National Pension Act
Plaintiff
National Pension Service
October 8, 2013
1. The Defendant’s disposition rejecting payment of a lump-sum refund to the Plaintiff on September 10, 2012 is revoked.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff, as a member of October 14, 1946, joined the National Pension Scheme from July 2004 to October 2006 as a workplace-based subscriber, and paid a total of KRW 3,682,80,80.
B. Around September 2006, employees employed by the Defendant directed the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff would be 60 years of age as of October 14, 2006 and would be able to receive a lump-sum refund, but the Plaintiff would receive a lump-sum refund or continue to join a lump-sum refund,” and the Plaintiff did not subscribe to the National Pension Scheme any longer.
C. On September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of a lump-sum refund with the Defendant, but the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on the same day that “the extinctive prescription has expired five years after October 14, 2006, which was the date on which the entitlement to a lump-sum refund was created” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Even if the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s entitlement to a lump-sum refund has expired, the Defendant’s refusal to pay a lump-sum refund upon the expiration of the extinctive prescription is not permissible in light of the good faith principle.
B. Relevant statutes
[Attachment] The entry in the relevant statutes is as follows.
C. Determination
The exercise of the obligor's right of defense based on the statute of limitations is also governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of our Civil Act. Thus, in special cases where the obligor acted to make it impossible or considerably difficult for the obligee to exercise the obligee's right or the interruption of prescription before the expiration of the statute of limitations, or where the obligee has objectively obstructed the obligee from exercising his right, or where the obligor has objectively obstructed the obligee from using the statute of limitations, or where the obligor has shown the same attitude that the obligor would not invoke the statute of limitations after the expiration of the statute of limitations, or where the obligor has made the obligee trusted the obligor, or where the obligor has already received part of the obligees under the same condition as it is highly necessary to protect the obligee, and where the obligor significantly improper or unfair to refuse the performance of obligation, it cannot be allowed to claim the completion of the statute of limitations as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da27604, Dec. 7, 1999>
In light of the above legal principles, where a person whose insurance coverage period is less than 10 years reaches 60 years of age and becomes a beneficiary of a lump-sum refund without receiving a lump-sum refund or a lump-sum refund without receiving a lump-sum refund. It is reasonable to view that the defendant should give explanation that long as the plaintiff does not voluntarily join the National Pension Scheme, the right to receive a lump-sum refund can be extinguished by prescription if the plaintiff is paid a lump-sum refund without receiving a lump-sum refund (the deprivation of an opportunity to receive a lump-sum refund on the ground of the expiration of prescription violates the purpose of the National Pension Act to guarantee the compensation for contribution during the national pension coverage period and enhance the people's trust in the national pension system), ② Article 17(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the National Pension Act provides that the Corporation shall notify the insured of the contents of subscription, such as the total amount of pension contributions, and the expected pension benefits to be paid in cases where a person who was a beneficiary of a lump-sum refund becomes a beneficiary of a lump-sum refund before the expiration of prescription period.
Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful.
3. Conclusion
The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.
[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted
Judges Kim Jong-jin (Presiding Judge)